Workman v. State

• Decision Date: 27 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 33620.,33620.
• Citation: 164 P.3d 798,144 Idaho 518
• Parties: Kenneth WORKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

164 P.3d 798

144 Idaho 518

Kenneth WORKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 33620.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2007 Term.

June 27, 2007.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP, Boise, for appellant. Dennis A. Benjamin argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Courtney E. Beebe argued.

TROUT, Justice.

Kenneth Workman appeals from the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2001, Workman drove his vehicle off Interstate 84 and into two pickup trucks parked on the side of the road. At the time of the crash, Workman was under the influence of heroin, methamphetamine and THC. The owners of the trucks were standing between the vehicles at the time of the crash, and both suffered serious injuries. One person was thrown into the road and suffered major broken bones and a ruptured spleen. The other person was pinned between the vehicles, breaking one leg while the other was severed from his body. The State charged Workman with two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, felonies under Idaho Code section 18-8006, and one count of felony possession of a controlled substance under Idaho Code section 37-2732(c). The State also filed an Information alleging that Workman was a persistent violator with two convictions for possession of a controlled substance.

Workman and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Workman was to enter a guilty plea to the two counts of aggravated DUI and to the charge of being a persistent violator. Under the agreement, the State would drop the count of possession of a controlled substance and make a sentencing recommendation of no more than a life sentence with twenty-five years fixed. At the plea hearing, the district judge engaged in a colloquy with Workman, asking him a number of questions about the offense, his understanding of the purpose and consequence of the hearing, and his ability to understand the proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing, Workman admitted that the offenses charged against him were true, and the district court accepted this as a plea of guilt. At the sentencing hearing, Workman's attorney offered few arguments for his client apart from suggesting that his client had been cooperative and asking the district court for mercy. The district court imposed two fixed life sentences, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals on direct appeal.

Workman then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and sought the appointment of counsel. The district judge ruled that she would not appoint counsel unless she determined there was a valid basis for post-conviction relief. In his petition, Workman claimed that his guilty plea was invalid because he was under the influence of antipsychotic medication when he entered his plea. Workman further claimed that he did not actually enter a guilty plea, and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed a detailed answer and motion to dismiss Workman's petition, to which Workman filed a reply, pro se.

Without further notice, the district court dismissed Workman's petition and entered judgment as a matter of law for the State. The court found Workman's claim that he was under the influence of antipsychotic drugs to be unsubstantiated and noted that Workman did not seek a judicial determination of his competence before pleading guilty. The court dismissed Workman's ineffective assistance of counsel claims after concluding that Workman failed to satisfy both prongs of the test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Finding no genuine issue of material fact, the court summarily dismissed Workman's petition for post-conviction relief. Having concluded there were no potential claims to investigate, the district court also denied appointment of counsel for Workman.

Workman appealed from the denial of his post-conviction petition and the matter was assigned to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Workman then filed a petition for review with this Court, which was granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

While this Court gives serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals when considering a case on review from that court, this Court reviews the district court's decisions directly. State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 226, 91 P.3d 1127, 1130 (2004).

An application for post-conviction relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA) is civil in nature. Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 495, 36 P.3d 1278, 1282 (2001). Like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant for post-conviction relief must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the application for post-conviction relief is based. Grube v. State, 134 Idaho 24, 995 P.2d 794 (2000). Unlike the complaint in an ordinary civil action, however, an application for post-conviction relief must contain more than "a short and plain statement of the claim" that would suffice for a complaint under I.R.C.P. 8(a)(1). Rather, an application for post-conviction relief must be verified with respect to facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant. I.C. § 19-4903. The application must include affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its allegations, or must state why such supporting evidence is not included. Id.

Summary disposition is appropriate if the applicant's evidence raises no genuine issue of material fact. I.C. § 19-4906(b), (c). On review of a dismissal of a post-conviction relief application without an evidentiary hearing, this Court will determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists based on the pleadings, depositions and admissions together with any affidavits on file and will liberally construe the facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Gilpin-Grubb v. State, 138 Idaho 76, 80, 57 P.3d 787, 791 (2002). A court is required to accept the petitioner's unrebutted allegations as true, but need not accept the petitioner's conclusions. Ferrier v. State, 135 Idaho 797, 799, 25 P.3d 110, 112 (2001). When the alleged facts, even if true, would not entitle the applicant to relief, the trial court may dismiss the application without holding an evidentiary hearing. Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869, 801 P.2d 1216, 1220 (1990), citing Cooper v. State, 96 Idaho 542, 545, 531 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1975). Allegations contained in the application are insufficient for the granting of relief when (1) they are clearly disproved by the record of the original proceedings, or (2) do not justify relief as a matter of law. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Dismissal of the petition under I.C. § 19-4906(c)

The first issue on appeal is whether the district court acted properly in summarily dismissing Workman's petition for post-conviction relief without giving notice of its intent to do so. Idaho Code § 19-4906 permits a court to rule summarily on applications for post-conviction relief. A court may grant the motion of either party under I.C. § 19-4906(c), or may dismiss the application sua sponte under I.C. § 19-4906(b).¹ When a court dismisses an application sua sponte, the statute requires the court give the applicant 20-days' notice prior to the proposed dismissal.

1. Notice of dismissal

Workman argues that the State did not specifically request summary dismissal or specifically invoke I.C. § 19-4906(c) and, therefore, the district court's dismissal must have been sua sponte, subject to I.C. § 19-4906(b)'s requirement that 20-days notice be given before dismissal.

In Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 900 P.2d 795 (1995), this Court found that the State's general request for dismissal did not constitute a proper motion for summary disposition under subsection (c). The district court summarily dismissed Saykhamchone's application for post-conviction relief after the State filed an answer that included the request to "[d]ismiss the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the above entitled action without further hearing and pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 19-4901, et seq." The Court found that the State's "general request" in the answer's prayer for relief did not "fairly constitute `a motion.'" 127 Idaho at 322, 900 P.2d at 798. Thus, the Court faulted the State for its lack of specificity of grounds as well as its failure to actually file a motion. "[A]t a minimum, the state's prayer for relief in the Answer was deficient for not stating its grounds with particularity, and for not stating that it was the state's motion for summary disposition under I.C. § 19-4906(c)." Id. (emphasis in original).

Unlike the State's answer in Saykhamchone, the State in this case submitted not just an answer but a motion to dismiss. The State's answer and motion also contained twenty-two pages of argument categorically addressing Workman's allegations, identified by number. At the end of each set of thematically grouped, specifically identified allegations, the motion states that the Court should "DISMISS" the allegations, or that the allegations should "BE DISMISSED." As the Saykhamchone Court explained, the reason that subsection (b), but not subsection (c), requires a 20-day notice by the court of intent to dismiss, is that under subsection (c), "the motion itself serves as notice that summary dismissal is being sought." Id. at 322, 900 P.2d at 798. "[W]hen the State files an answer, the petitioner can rightly expect that the matter will proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the issues framed by the pleadings...." Id. This is so unless it has notice of the possibility of summary dismissal, either in the form of the court's 20-day notice of intent to dismiss or the State's motion for summary disposition. Whereas the answer in Saykhamchone did not put the defendant on notice of what was actually being requested, in this case the State's...